Should the U.S. Constitution's

[sear]

There are various explanations for why the U.S. Constitution even has an electoral college.

But even if it was a good idea at one time, is it still?

Or has it outlasted its benefit?

Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to repeal the electoral college?

[Mr Honeybadger]

No. I think the electoral college works as it should. It gives less populated states and equal say-so. If it went by the popular vote, candidates would only care about the highly populated areas of the country.

[Lt_Ripley]

yes , it's the people who should determine who becomes president not a 3rd party or court. 1 vote per person. make it all count.

[sear]

"It gives less populated states and equal say-so." o t

"Equal"?

"Equal" to what?

It's not clear to me how giving a ballot cast in Wyoming over 3 times the value of a ballot cast by an ostensibly equal citizen in Florida.

That's anything but "equal".

[Dr. D]

No. I think the electoral college works as it should. It gives less populated states and equal say-so. If it went by the popular vote, candidates would only care about the highly populated areas of the country.

One man one vote is equality. The Electoral College was intended for an uninformed public without means of receiving information about issues or candidates. We have long since outlived that time. This question is so old that it was the topic of high school debate in the U.S. in 1953.

The disaster that has befallen this nation because of the 2000 election fiasco should be lesson enough that the system does not work and does not represent the public will.

[Startraveler]

I'd say keep it but only for selfish reasons--it makes my home state very important. And there are benefits to that.

[Guardsman Bass]

To be honest, I'm growing less and less convinced by the "smaller states need equal representation". That might have worked when most of the population still identified primarily with their individual states, but the current primary identity held by Americans is their national identity (in terms of political identities), and the technology is well available to make nation-wide elections possible. This is also the system that most other countries who run Presidential elections use, and it works pretty well.

A potential drawback is the fact that it will probably lead to more political focus on the cities at the expense of the countryside, but to be perfectly honest - why is this really a problem? The cities are home to most of the population, as well as serving as the major economic centers of the country. If they have a greater population, then they deserve more attention than random Joe Farmer out in the hinterlands of Nebraska. Besides, it's not as if the smaller states have no representation; they still have disproportionate influence in the Senate, as well as their representation in the House.

[Homer]

As sear said, the current system doesn't give smaller states 'equal' say-so, but a disproportionately larger one.

Although I haven't given it much thought, and I might be missing something here, but it seems to me one person-one vote seems fair enough.

Although that means presidential campaigners probably won't even visit the smaller states.

[Purplos]

Oh yes. Get rid of it. One person, one vote.

[Bella-Angelique]

No, it should not be repealed. The situation where there would be tyranny by the cities still exists, the exact same threat of long ago. If you think urban sprawl is a nightmare now, repeal the electoral college and it would plummet into the Twilight Zone. Everyone would pile up into city limits because only the citizens of cities would count as real citizens, all of the benefits, assistance, and consideration would be for them and them alone.

The founders knew about city states, they knew how that goes. Even with the electoral college we still have some of the problems caused by cities that are too large and powerful.

[Mr Honeybadger]

No, it should not be repealed. The situation where there would be tyranny by the cities still exists, the exact same threat of long ago. If you think urban sprawl is a nightmare now, repeal the electoral college and it would plummet into the Twilight Zone. Everyone would pile up into city limits because only the citizens of cities would count as real citizens, all of the benefits, assistance, and consideration would be for them and them alone.

The founders knew about city states, they knew how that goes. Even with the electoral college we still have some of the problems caused by cities that are too large and powerful.

Very well said. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing.

[sear]

"tyranny by the cities" Bella

Good one.

I've never heard that one before.

But from the writings of the Founders, and the history written of them I have read such terms as "tyranny of the majority", & "democracy" is "mob rule".

"Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh

tyranny (tîr´e-nê) noun

plural tyrannies

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.*

We should note with emphasis that even one voter one vote did shift the U.S. electorate to a somewhat more urban perspective, that's hardly "tyranny" by any legitimate description.

The cities of the United States of America are occupied [largely] by our countrymen. They're not al Qaida. They're not Chi-comms. They're not subversives. They're c i t i z e n s.

It is inappropriate in this Third Millennium to institutionalize an artificial electoral prophylactic to guard us from their opinions.

They are our equals. And as fellow tax paying citizens they are rightly entitled to be treated by law as our equals.

On the "mob rule" issue:

While I have boundless respect, admiration, and appreciation for the magnificent collective accomplishment of these exceptional Americans; they misrepresent formal electoral democracy (not as a form of government, but as a method of tallying a vote) by calling "mob rule". In fact, because I have witnessed mob behavior I can attest to the fact that a "mob" can be disorderly, lawless, and can inflict mayhem without restraint. "Lynch mob" for example, gives us some insight into what a "mob" can actually do, and has done.

But there needn't be anything more disorderly about tallying ballots democratically than tallying them in accordance with the electoral college.

Therefore defending the electoral college by calling a democratic vote "mob rule" is a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss by slogan.

It's a substitute for reason, but not a legitimate reason by itself. A fully lawful electoral process is not "mob rule"; no matter what the Founders said.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[Dr. D]

No, it should not be repealed. The situation where there would be tyranny by the cities still exists, the exact same threat of long ago. If you think urban sprawl is a nightmare now, repeal the electoral college and it would plummet into the Twilight Zone. Everyone would pile up into city limits because only the citizens of cities would count as real citizens, all of the benefits, assistance, and consideration would be for them and them alone.

The founders knew about city states, they knew how that goes. Even with the electoral college we still have some of the problems caused by cities that are too large and powerful.

Considering that the electoral college has respected the popular vote 40 of 43 elections, we have not seen these dire consequences you describe. Of the three presidents selected by the EC in defiance of popular vote, not one ranks in the top 20 by historians. The freedom to vote given by a democracy should not be filtered through any secondary mechanism but should remain as one of our most cherished individual rights.